CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1983

Claim of Scollo v. Joseph J. Pietrafesa Co.

The claimant, a fabric cutter, sustained a back injury while lifting heavy fabric in March 1980, necessitating a lumbar laminectomy. The employer and carrier contested the application for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding an accidental injury occurred during employment and awarded benefits. On appeal, the Board's decision was affirmed, with the court reiterating that questions of witness credibility fall within the Board's purview and that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings, despite contradictory evidence presented by the employer.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentBack InjuryLumbar LaminectomyCredibility of WitnessesSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBenefits AwardedEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1986

Claim of Yagaloff v. Hall

The claimant, a school teacher, suffered a back injury while lifting teaching materials in May 1981. She sought prompt medical attention from a chiropractor and later an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed a herniated disc and performed a laminectomy. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused her failure to provide timely notice of the injury under Workers’ Compensation Law § 18, concluding that the employer and carrier were not prejudiced. The Board found that the employer's inactivity could not form the basis for a prejudice claim regarding the lack of notice. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the carrier was not prejudiced by the delayed notice.

Back InjuryHerniated DiscLaminectomyTimely NoticeWorkers' Compensation Law § 18PrejudiceSubstantial EvidenceMedical TreatmentChiropractorOrthopedic Surgeon
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Di Simone v. Underwriters Adjusting Co.

The claimant, an insurance adjustor, sustained a low back injury in 1971. After initial recovery, he experienced recurrent pain, culminating in 1977 with severe back pain requiring laminectomy and fusion surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined a direct causal link between the 1971 accident and the 1977 disability, rejecting a referee’s finding of a new accident in 1977. The Board’s decision relied on Dr. Wilson’s testimony, which characterized the 1977 issues as recurrences of the 1971 injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and noting the Board’s authority to resolve conflicts in medical testimony.

Recurrent injuryPrior injury exacerbationWorkers' compensation claimLow back injuryLaminectomy and fusionCausation disputeMedical opinion conflictSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewBoard decision affirmed
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1986

Claim of Grandinetti v. Syracuse University

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision finding a claimant totally industrially disabled following a compensable back injury in 1982. The self-insured employer challenged this determination, asserting the claimant was only partially disabled and that his failure to complete a rehabilitation program and refusal to undergo a myelogram should preclude a total disability finding. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing abundant medical evidence supporting total disability, the claimant’s age, work experience, and limited education. The court also found the claimant’s refusal of a myelogram and potential laminectomy to be reasonable given the associated dangers and his family's adverse experiences.

Industrial DisabilityBack Injury CompensationMedical Treatment RefusalVocational RehabilitationEmployer LiabilityDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewMedical Expert OpinionPre-existing InjurySpinal Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1983

Claim of Morgante v. Southeastern Public Service Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision, filed March 29, 1983, was affirmed on appeal. The Board had reversed an administrative law judge's disallowance, reinstating an award for total disability to the claimant. The claimant suffered a back injury in November 1979 while loading logs, which led to a myelogram and a decompressive laminectomy. Despite initial conflicting medical evidence and testimony regarding the causal link to employment and employer notice, the Board found the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court upheld the Board's decision, stating that the resolution of conflicting facts and credibility issues are beyond its review, provided a sufficient evidentiary basis exists for the Board's factual determination.

Workers' Compensation AppealCausationCredibility AssessmentConflicting Medical EvidenceAccident Arising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentLumbar InjuryMyelogramLaminectomyBoard Decision Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tucci v. Kimball

Claimant, a nursery school teacher, sustained a work-related lower back injury in December 1974, leading to permanent partial disability and workers’ compensation benefits. Following a second laminectomy in 1993, she developed worsening urinary incontinence. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a finding that claimant was totally disabled due to this condition, deeming it a consequence of her original work-related injury. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that while conflicting medical opinions existed, the neurologist’s testimony provided substantial evidence to support the finding of total disability stemming from the 1974 injury.

work-related injurylower back injuryurinary incontinencepermanent partial disabilitytotal disabilitylaminectomymedical opinionsneurologist testimonysubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fonda v. Norton Co.

Claimant suffered serious injuries to his right leg, hip, and spine in February 1988, necessitating two laminectomies for a herniated disc. The employer and its insurer challenged the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination that the claimant's permanent disability resulted solely from his back injury, arguing that a preexisting dormant heart condition contributed. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's disability was not materially or substantially greater due to the heart condition. The Board's prerogative to resolve conflicting medical opinions was upheld. Furthermore, the court found the employer's argument regarding a contractually based reimbursement claim could not be raised for the first time on appeal, as it was not addressed administratively.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryPreexisting ConditionHeart ConditionDisabilityLaminectomyCausationMedical EvidenceFactual DisputeAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Ornellas v. Roger Maffei, Inc.

The claimant injured his neck in 1970, and despite medical bills being paid by the carrier, no compensation was issued due to a lack of disability exceeding seven days. The case was closed in 1973 after a Referee found no causal link between a subsequent laminectomy and the initial injury. In 1977, a new medical bill prompted the Workers’ Compensation Board to reopen the case, examining liability under Workers' Compensation Law sections 123 and 25-a. Both a Referee and the Board initially found these sections inapplicable. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision regarding section 123 but reversed its finding on section 25-a, ruling the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable, and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with this determination.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened CasesStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 123Medical Expense LiabilityCausationDisabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2015

Tuzzolino v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

In July 2013, the plaintiff was injured in a fall at the defendant's plant, sustaining a wrist fracture, and injuries to the lower back, right leg, and foot. He underwent a lumbar laminectomy in April 2014 and sought treatment from various healthcare providers, including a spinal surgeon. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action alleging Labor Law violations. The defendant served subpoenas on the plaintiff's nonparty treating healthcare providers, claiming the testimony was unavailable through other sources. The plaintiff moved to quash these subpoenas and sought a protective order. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the defendant failed to demonstrate the testimony sought was unrelated to diagnosis and treatment or that it was the only means of obtaining the information. The court emphasized that the treating providers' records were accessible for review by the defendant's experts.

SubpoenasProtective OrderMedical RecordsTreating PhysiciansDepositionsDiscoveryAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySpinal Surgery
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1979

In re the Claim of McEnaney v. Memorial Hospital

The claimant, a clinical instructor at Memorial Hospital, injured her back in December 1975 while lifting a patient. She sought medical attention in April 1976 and underwent a laminectomy in September 1976. She filed for compensation benefits in March 1977, more than 15 months after the injury, thus failing to give timely notice as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially excused the delay, finding notice was given as soon as the claimant had knowledge of the injury's nature and extent. A later amendment further excused the delay, stating the employer was not prejudiced because the claimant received prompt medical treatment and her medical records were accessible. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, finding no error in the board's conclusion that the claimant was not provided with a definite diagnosis initially, and that the employer was not prejudiced as medical records were available.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeEmployer PrejudiceMedical TreatmentBack InjuryLaminectomyNew York LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionExcused Delay
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 13 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational